“In former times the necessity of Baptism to new born infants was so rigorously taught, that for this reason they allowed lay people and even women, to baptize the declining child, where a priest could not be immediately found; so fondly superstitious in this matter, that in hard labours the head of the infant was sometimes baptized before the whole delivery; this office of baptizing in such cases of necessity was commonly performed by the midwife; and tis very probable, this gave first occasion to midwives being licensed by the bishop, because they were to be first examined by the bishop or his delegated officer, whether they could repeat the form of baptism which they were in haste to administer upon such extraordinary occasions. But we thank God our times are reformed in sense and in religion.” (_Watson’s Cler. Law, c._ 31, _p._ 318.) The concluding sentence appears to be somewhat ill placed, for a few lines before the reverend author says, “And _Note_, that a child baptized with water in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is sufficiently baptized, although not baptized by a lawful priest, as may be collected from the Rubrick; and so it is if the child be baptized by other form, yet the person baptizing not being a lawful priest is punishable, like as a lawful priest baptizing by other form than is set down by the Book of Common Prayer is punishable;” and a few lines after, he says, that a Clergyman “ought not to bury the corps of any person dying unbaptized:” surely if the baptism of a child by a lay person is good, and the body cannot have Christian Burial without it, there is nothing senseless or irreligious, and we will venture to add nothing morally or legally wrong, in the performance of this provisional ceremony. If there were no other object than to satisfy the anxiety of the mother at a moment when the calmness of her feelings is vitally important, it ought not to be omitted whenever the danger of the child and the absence of a priest appear to render it necessary. _Burn_ says, “By several constitutions, the minister was required frequently to instruct the people, in the form of words to be used in such cases of necessity,” (2 _Burn’s Ecc. Law_, p. 469,) and the oath administered by the bishops to licensed midwives, (_See Appx._ 160,) though, it does not command, implies that baptism may be administered by other than a priest. “You shall not be privy, or consent that any priest or _other_ party shall in your absence or in your company, or of your knowledge or sufferance baptize any child by any mass, latin service or prayers, than such as are appointed by the laws of the Church of England:” here the prohibition is to the form not the person.